Elon Musk buys and ruins Twitter

[shemnel]

X is however a major threat to this type of big media because opinion isn't being shaped anymore by major corporates trying to sell news to their target demographics. Instead it's being shaped by people of all creeds talking to each other via a communication medium that has unlimited reach. The unfortunate problem is that humans often do have terrible views.

but spam, bots, governments, think tanks, consulting firms, etc etc etc are doing exactly that, shaping people's opinions, at an ever more efficient rate and alarming success than newspapers ever could.

 

[west didsblue]

He really thinks everything is a game

By using an animated dog in the logo that’s not dissimilar to the Dogecoin dog he’s not even hiding the fact that it’s a huge grift. He’s probably already covered the cost of buying Twitter with his Dogecoin stake increase. Just the huge government contracts heading to Tesla and SpaceX to come along with a contract with X for it to be the government’s official news outlet. By the end of Trump’s first four years I’m predicting Musk will personally be worth a trillion and Trump will have tens of billions. The country will be fucked though.

 

[inbetween]

The unfortunate problem is that millions have access to a bully pulpit they didn’t earn via hard work and expertise. The unfortunate problem is that there are no editors for quality-control, fact-checking and tone. The unfortunate problem is when everyone has access to the same pulpit, extremism that otherwise should be considered a tiny minority view becomes considered a major threat, which creates more extremism to counteract it. The unfortunate problem is that due to speed and immediacy, what is false becomes true — discovering truth takes time.

Legacy media has lots of problems. New media has far, far more.

So what you're saying is that the real problem of this new media is the lack of control? Hmm. Does that not worry you because who should be in control of the opinion of a population? If I decide to say something on X then are you saying that I should be fact-checked? Why isn't this forum held to the same standards because isn't it the same thing?

These level of standards actually don't apply to the media either and you're wrong on that. You mention fact-checking, quality and tone but the media has never operated on that basis. For a start there have been hundreds of successful criminal prosecutions against the media in the UK to tackle illegal phone hacking, lies, libels, deceptions and press intrusions..... You name it, they've done it.

The closest thing we have to a fact-checked neutral outlet in the UK is the BBC but barely anybody digests their news from the BBC alone. They don't do that because the BBC is neutral and people do not want neutrality which is why both the left and right hate the BBC. The BBC however isn't immune either and is itself littered with controversy and horrific criminal legacies such as with Jimmy Savile.

X however resolves all of this because at the end of the day those standards don't need to apply because they don't matter because you're talking to a person. As in real life you have a choice to ignore that person, call them batshit crazy, or whatever you want. It's absolutely no different to this forum except the audience is on a very different scale and that's probably the real problem.

 

[BlueHammer85]

He really thinks everything is a game

That's why the Americans love him.

 

[I'm With Stupid]

These level of standards actually don't apply to the media either and you're wrong on that. You mention fact-checking, quality and tone but the media has never operated on that basis. For a start there have been hundreds of successful criminal prosecutions against the media in the UK to tackle illegal phone hacking, lies, libels, deceptions and press intrusions..... You name it, they've done it.

The fact that these criminal prosecutions happened is evidence that those standards exist in the first place. There are countless stories that newspapers haven't published because they do have to adhere to standards or risk getting sued. Obviously sometimes they don't follow the rules and get punished for it. It's like arguing that because some people get prosecuted for breaking the speed limit, the speed limits don't exist.

 

[grunge]

So what you're saying is that the real problem of this new media is the lack of control? Hmm. Does that not worry you because who should be in control of the opinion of a population? If I decide to say something on X then are you saying that I should be fact-checked? Why isn't this forum held to the same standards because isn't it the same thing?

These level of standards actually don't apply to the media either and you're wrong on that. You mention fact-checking, quality and tone but the media has never operated on that basis. For a start there have been hundreds of successful criminal prosecutions against the media in the UK to tackle illegal phone hacking, lies, libels, deceptions and press intrusions..... You name it, they've done it.

The closest thing we have to a fact-checked neutral outlet in the UK is the BBC but barely anybody digests their news from the BBC alone. They don't do that because the BBC is neutral and people do not want neutrality which is why both the left and right hate the BBC. The BBC however isn't immune either and is itself littered with controversy and horrific criminal legacies such as with Jimmy Savile.

X however resolves all of this because at the end of the day those standards don't need to apply because they don't matter because you're talking to a person. As in real life you have a choice to ignore that person, call them batshit crazy, or whatever you want. It's absolutely no different to this forum except the audience is on a very different scale and that's probably the real problem.

At what point do you draw the line? Moderation isn’t just fact checking.

Online bullying? Openly Racist posts not getting deleted? Someone calling someone a pedo and not getting moderated even when proof is supplied ( happened to Richard Coles ), sexual abuse videos not getting removed when reported? Literal car crashes with cars plowing though crowds etc. Snuff videos? Torture videos? Assasination videos ( plenty of videos of people getting shot etc ) Without moderation of these things Twitter is a cesspool, it’s like 90’s 4chan on steroids and it wouldn’t surprise me if a fair chunk of those videos are illegal to view in many countries.

 

[inbetween]

The fact that these criminal prosecutions happened is evidence that those standards exist in the first place. There are countless stories that newspapers haven't published because they do have to adhere to standards or risk getting sued. Obviously sometimes they don't follow the rules and get punished for it. It's like arguing that because some people get prosecuted for breaking the speed limit, the speed limits don't exist.

This isn't because of standards at all. This is outright criminal behaviour. There is no standard which allows you to commit libel or hack sombody's phone.

They did these things because that's what the media does because the media is driven by profit. The media does not exist to report fact-checked news according to some standard or regulatory code, it's utter nonsense. How much bollocks have they spouted and written about city over the years?

If we're worried about criminal behaviour on X then how come hundreds of people were put in prison recently for saying bad things on X and rioting as a result of it? What are we seriously worried about other than a rise of politics that we dislike on a platform that is run by a guy that we dislike?

 

[117 M34]

Now that he is in government is there a risk that he puts regulations in place that stops other social media sites from operating to push X?

 

[I'm With Stupid]

So what you're saying is that the real problem of this new media is the lack of control? Hmm. Does that not worry you because who should be in control of the opinion of a population? If I decide to say something on X then are you saying that I should be fact-checked? Why isn't this forum held to the same standards because isn't it the same thing?

I think the issue isn't control, it's accountability. The problem is that the people who run these platforms like the argue that they are nothing but a tool and bear absolutely no responsibility for the content that appears on them. This allows, for example, Pornhub to literally host child porn and the owners of the website to have no legal consequences for doing so because they argue that they're just a tool and took it down when notified. Nevermind that they also had no way of stopping the exact same videos being uploaded again and again almost immediately after they were removed.

The reality is that these platforms are not publishers in the traditional sense because they don't choose and edit the content that goes on their platform. However, they are absolutely not just some tool, because they are publishing the content and disseminating it to a wide audience. They are also making editorial decisions about who gets to see what content. It's immaterial that a lot of that process is automated. And given those facts, it is absolutely a valid discussion to consider making them legally responsible for harm caused by things appearing on their platform, especially when they have demonstrably done little-to-nothing to stop it.

 

[I'm With Stupid]

This isn't because of standards at all. This is outright criminal behaviour. There is no standard which allows you to commit libel or hack sombody's phone.

Well of course, but the point is that those legal standards don't exist for social media companies, because we operate in a system where they've managed to argue the "we're just a tool" line, when in reality, they are the ones publishing the false claim. It'd be like the Daily Mail publishing a libellous piece, and the victim only being able to sue the writer, not the Daily Mail.